Thread by @charliewinter

Three quick points in light of the Shamima Begum news:

1. I take issue with Begum’s lawyer saying that she should be viewed as a “victim.” This is naive: it denies that she has any agency. She herself says that she doesn’t regret going to or staying in #IS.

2a. Begum speaks about living a “normal life” in #IS. This doesn’t surprise me, but nor does it preclude her from being a potential security risk if she makes it back to the #UK (which, for the record, I think she should).

2b. It’s long been rumoured that #IS has been training women—especially foreign women—in weapons and explosives. The first (unverifiable) report I heard of this was from #Syria|n Khansa’ defectors in 2015.

2c. This article I wrote about #IS’s stance on women and jihad is relevant. In it, I explain how #IS had long prohibited women from fighting, but that, in 2017, it began to shift its position.
institute.global/insight/co-exi…

2d. Now, it is up to the #UK's CT authorities to assess what danger Begum may pose.

3. In any case, based on this interview, Begum seems disillusioned with the *reality* of #IS but not with the *idea* behind it. So, while she may be disengaged, she does not seem to be deradicalised. This is a very important distinction to make.